Media Watch doesn't get the joke

Did a skit by The Hamster Wheel featuring Chris Kenny and a dog, go too far?

Chris Kenny: They need to actually start to question the billion, $1.1 billion they throw to the ABC for instance.

Andrew Hansen: I agree. They’ve just got to cut ABC funding. I mean this, this is a network that broadcasts images of Chris Kenny strangling a dog while having sex with it.

Chas Licciardello: Disgusting. Worse still, worse still, they then handed him over to Channel 9 to feed him to the sharks. ABC what a terrible network.

— ABC1, The Hamster Decides, 11th September, 2013

Hello, I’m Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch.

And as you roar with laughter or reel with shock let me say it’s not normally my job to get stuck into comedy programs.

But after weeks of tackling the Tele for putting Kevin Rudd on the front page in a Nazi uniform, we could hardly ignore the Hamster Decides’ portrayal of the Australian newspaper’s Chris Kenny as a sexual pervert...

No doubt the Chaser team’s defence is that it’s satire.

But I can see nothing satirical or clever in the suggestion that Kenny—who is one of the ABC’s noisiest critics—has sex with animals.

And needless to say Chris Kenny did not find it funny either.

Chris Kenny: A picture of me there’s no polite way to say it, of me, a doctored picture, something fabricated, of me up a dog. Literally up a dog ...

My sister and her children, they saw it, and my kids now when they want to Google my name, they’ll see it in the future. It's just a nice little slap down from the ABC because I dared to challenge the ABC – on behalf of taxpayers. I, like you, pay for it.

— Sky News, Friday night Live, 13th September, 2013

Now remarkably, the ABC has not been flooded with complaints.

But one angry viewer did write to Media Watch to say he found it “disgusting” and “defamatory”...

I am reliably informed that the word “dogf...er” went unedited to air. I am astonished the ABC would allow broadcast of this kind of trash - and thus tacitly endorse it.

Dear Comedia Watch, the image you’ve asked about was a joke about an inappropriate way to respond to calls for ABC funding cuts. There’s no more background to it than that. All the information required to get the joke was included in the show. An image of Paul Barry like the one behind the text could have been used if he’d made similar comments. But as with all jokes not everyone will find it funny.

YOUR COMMENTS

Comments (45)

Angie :

05 Aug 2014 4:52:51pm

The Tele is a newspaper, while the hamster wheel is a satirical comedy show. They're not meant to be consumed in the same way. I have no idea why kenny is suing if he were so concerned about the image in question. I watched the episode and would have promptly forgotten about the image were it not for the court case. Saying the the Kenny image is worse than a sexually objectifying image if a female parliamentarian just goes to show why a media landscape full of old white men is not something to be proud of.

Michael Webster :

08 Mar 2014 2:07:47pm

The mockup of Sarah Hansen-Young is clearly offensive, but very different from the Chaser's portrayal of Chris Kenny.

The Hansen-Young pictured appeared in a magazine that sexually objectifies women (not something I'm necessarily opposed to), and placing the doctored image in that context clearly seeks to diminish her value as a competent politician and impute she's some kind of bimbo.

The Chris Kenny picture is completely different in two ways. Firstly, it is extremely obvious that it was faked, and it appeared in a comedy/satirical context where similar license is taken with all of their comments and portrayals. There is no imputation that Kenny actually has sex with dogs.

What is far more offensive is Kenny's faux outrage over the depiction. He's obviously pleased as punch about it, because he's been able to use it to further the anti-ABC agenda of Murdoch and the Australian.

If he's truly worried about his reputation, and how his children see him, he should quit working for a man who 's papers routinely lie, and hack the phones of murdered children. Having sex with dogs would be far less embarrassing to a decent human being, than prostituting yourself for Murdoch and spreading his vile misinformation.

Matthew White :

19 Sep 2013 11:15:06pm

While there may be an issue with regards to the ABC being publicly funded (although I am sure the Chaser team could find work on a commercial network, given their ratings), I think that, ultimately, if you believe, as I do, in Freedom of Speech, you believe in the right of people to be offensive - to say things which are not to you're taste, which mock you, and with which you may strongly disagree. Whether or not any of us like the photoshopped images of Chris Kenny or Sarah Hanson-Young, and whether or not they might personally be disgusted, I don't believe we should be subjecting such things to legal sanction.

dke :

18 Sep 2013 9:27:22pm

I laughed much more with PB's apology than the skit. It was beautifully crafted to expose Kenny's hypocrisy with sufficient self-deprecation to show he really wasn't rubbing Kenny's nose in it. And he finished with a quote from Monty Python. Bonza!

John Cassidy :

18 Sep 2013 7:02:01pm

I can recall another attempt at humour when this same crew did a skit on terminally ill kids in a cancer ward our family is one touched by cancer,I found this to be highly offensive. I feel the program should be axed and give these people a reality check on where their priorities should lie.A complete and utter disgrace if this is the best they can put to air.

A bit of perspective :

18 Sep 2013 3:21:46pm

Those above who are frothing with righteous umbrage may be interested to know that Kenny's own son - who was apparently going to be emotionally/psychologically harmed by the Chasers' portrayal of his father - has no problem at all with the Chaser's piece:

It rather puts things into context, especially when I can't find any sign on the internet of the outraged personages above or elsewhere ever having documented their disgust at, say, Tony Abbott's tacit acceptance of the placard depicting Gillard as a witch...

Jeb :

22 Sep 2013 2:58:14pm

I don't care if his son doesn't mind I DO. This show should be off the air it is disgusting rubbish and to compare the skit or picture to the 'Witch' comment about JG is a sign of just how obscene and disgusting you guys are. Grow up.

Pete :

18 Sep 2013 1:11:27am

Personally, I am happy that Ms. Hanson-Young has won the right to sue. I hope she wins.

I hope that Kenny sues the Chaser team... and wins.

But mostly, I hope that the useless, cheap and self-righteous mob that started this stupid and puerile method of photoshopping in the name of "satire" get sued and lose (a LOT) for all the damage they have caused with this tactic. Who was that mob of useless gooses again?

Oh yeah, News Ltd... Who does Kenny work for again? ;)

I suspect that this will be the reason Kenny will not sue over this matter. He doesn't want the floodgates to open on his own backside. As it were...

mandarinstudent :

18 Sep 2013 12:52:47am

Helen Liu's name was mispronounced. The "u" vowel in "iu" is more like "o" than "u." Say "lyo" rather than "lyoo."

And by the way (just for future reference, though probably PB knows that - eg, Qingdao for the place and the beer which comes from it) the "q" in Chinese words lacks a "u" after it. It is not pronounced (as we often hear - most recently I think from Doug Cameron) "kw" as we pronounce "qu" but rather something more like "ch."

No-one expects the ABC to reproduce the tonal aspects of Chinese words but an effort could be made to at least get the consonants, vowels and diphthongs right.

perry :

Pablo :

17 Sep 2013 7:43:13pm

It is not so much the offensiveness, it is more the selectivity which makes me watch the ABC less and less. When Virginia Trioli made the crazy face about Barnaby Joyce, you saw the clear contempt that the whole organisation has for that 50% of Australians who vote right of center.

If they want it to be an exclusive little club that's fine - but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Matthew Whote :

17 Sep 2013 7:21:28pm

Notably, Paul Barry did not actually state whether or not he agreed with the judge in the Sarah Hanson-Young case. it was stated that, if the image in Zoo was offence, and therefore actionable, the image from the Chaser certainly would be. Put aside the question of whether or not the Chaser photoshop was actually more offensive or degrading than the Zoo one (this is the problem with something being 'offensive' - it's subjective nature. One might indeed be personally more offended by the 'eaten by sharks' graphics than either of the above two images - we can't say that that what they feel is 'wrong', if they do genuinely feel it), I am quite willing to accept that the Chaser image was the more 'offensive' (whatever that means). I may be logically inconsistent to defend the judges decision in the Hanson-Young case, and to also then defend the Chaser. There would be no inconsistency, however, in disagreeing with the said judge, while defending the Chaser. Barry, while giving the judges ruling, does not ever say whether or not he agrees with it. This become particularly glaring when he does, in fact, give his opinion with regard to the shield law and various cases surrounding this issue. Media Watch is acting as a defender of journalistic freedom, supporting a shield law and journalist who refused to give up there sources, but is silent on the issue of free speech, when it comes to the Hanson-Young case. Personally, I believe the judges ruling against Zoo magazine is more problematic than the various decisions against journalists. I'm a strong supporter of free speech, and the journalistic freedoms which come with it - for example the right to mock or insult people. It's freedom, however, should apply to everyone - I should be just as free to creat mock-ups of politicians (or anyone else) as Zoo magazine should be. Shield laws, however, give a right - the right to not answer questions on court- to journalists, that is not similarly given to those who don't meet the somewhat vague and problematic) definition of 'journalist'.

careful reader :

18 Sep 2013 1:06:53am

As PB probably knows but didn't really let on, Justice McCallum wasn't deciding whether the defamatory imputation was actually conveyed but merely whether it was capable of being conveyed so that the claim should be permitted to be repleaded rather than struck out (OK we are getting technical now). See Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited [2013] NSWSC 1306 which can be found at http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=167092.

Julian Morron :

17 Sep 2013 4:13:59pm

I am OUTRAGED. Through one simple act of faux-comedic thoughtlessness, the ABC have given licence to far-right buffons to sexually violate poor pooches across this wide brown land. And don't you think for a moment that they won't.

I am ringing the RSPCA's Photoshop unit as soon as I put down this very heavy computer.

Sandra Healey :

17 Sep 2013 3:56:59pm

As a loyal and committed ABC viewer of some 30 odd years listening and viewing I am disgusted at this piece of vile television perpetrated by the Chaser group. They have no idea what 'satirical' actually means. As for 'funny' well words fail me. I will be lodging a formal complaint. The first time I have EVER had occasion to do so.

Belinda :

Judith Holmes :

17 Sep 2013 2:54:24pm

When will this group of so called "funny men" be stopped. Does anyone remember the dreadful skit in a kids cancer ward some years back ? Now that should have been enough to wipe them into oblivion! but no Auntie just lets them get on with their rubbish.

DLoop :

17 Sep 2013 2:23:12pm

The Chaser are a little hit and miss. This was a miss. The attack on Chris Kenny's remarks was called-for, but didn't require an ad hominem to make the point. If they'd said ironically that the ABC airs such pointless television (while showing examples of completely the opposite), and perhaps shown examples of where Sky air such brilliant television (while showing the opposite), it would have been a much more pointed comment. The trouble is, though, that a pointed comment would be much less shocking and wouldn't get as much of an audience. I do hope the Hamster Wheel (which is usually much more satirical) doesn't descend into stunts and ad hominem attacks as the War on Everything did.

Clark K :

17 Sep 2013 1:35:21pm

I complained by the way. Would Tim Mathieson photoshopped biting a pillow on the front page of the Herald Sun invite a response from Media Watch? If you think it would you should been far more critical of the ABC's response.

Matthew of Canberra :

17 Sep 2013 1:33:41pm

I'm amazed that NOBODY has expressed sympathy for those poor MP's who faced the far MORE serious portrayal of being dropped into a tank of live, ravenous sharks!

Has anyone here been EATEN by a ravenous shark? I haven't, but I'm sure it's no laughing matter. I expect that it would have caused the family of those poor faux-mauled (fauxled?) people enormous personal distress.

I think that whichever TV station produced those ersatz assassinations of living people should have to return all of its GFC-driven TV license discount immediately, and promise never to drop computer-rendered pictures of people into tanks of sharks, piranhas, crocodiles, snakes or other beasties, ravenous or wee timorous.

To be serious for a second, I also think the chaser skit was stupid - almost as stupid as the drawn-out and disturbing specter of the GG being thrown over the wall of a city club (guys - not funny, really). Both were just a bit too offensive per se, but they were MORE stupid because they gave easy ammunition to the po-faced opponents of the ABC who desperately need it.

Watching that skit, there was plenty to make hard-core ABC-haters angry - I was surprised that the Cory Bernardi segment didn't get complains (at least from Cory), but the haters can't complain about that because they'd look silly, nor can they complain about the video of Julie Bishop saying some side-splittingly funny things about what Tony's like in the locker rooms. But they CAN grab hold of the Kenny thing and let it stand for everything they hate about credible journalism.

Ok, they might not have cared about the Hanson-Young photos. Most of them might not have been all that upset about the Hanson photos. They might have thought pictures of Rudd dressed as a nazi extremely funny. But that's different - this picture had a DOG in it!

Brenda Bennewith :

17 Sep 2013 11:21:22am

Can't believe that we, the Australian public, pay these idiots to produce this sort of puerile rubbish. I wish that Kenny would sue. It's about time the ABC realised that the public are not fools. Time in fact to take them off the air.Brenda Bennewith

Jo :

Tim :

17 Sep 2013 10:22:36am

Paul Barry says here that "Now remarkably, the ABC has not been flooded with complaints". Paul, that is not remarkable at all. The ABC has slowly but very surely degenerated into a media outlet which exclusively appeals and presents for a set audience of people who think like they do. I doubt if many conservatives or people otherwise not politically aware of the left watch, listen or read the ABC. Stangely the ABC it appears will not be cut to shreds but the new Government. But really it's only a matter of time. Eventually the conservatives will say enough is enough and do away with it.

Andy :

17 Sep 2013 11:30:07am

people don't bother complaining to the ABC anymore as complaints don't get taken seriously. the number of complaints shouldn't matter. the material matters. it was crass, demeaning, and completely unnecessary. it just further convinces conservatives that the ABC is a sheltered workshop that needs to feel the influence of the free market in being responsible for the consequences of your actions. if a commercial station had shown similar material, their legal department would be all over it trying to placate litigants, advertisers would be asking for profuse apologies before they came back. but seemingly because the ABC has an audience of people who find bestiality funny it's ok.

John Jiggens :

17 Sep 2013 9:11:13am

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is the law and all the prophets too."

If ethical philosophy is not your cup of tea, Paul Barry, consider Game Theory. Tit-for-tat is the most effective strategy in the Prisoners' Dilemma. Pompous windbaggery is a very ineffective strategy.

steve scully :

17 Sep 2013 8:59:48am

Would someone explain to me how the ABC differentiates between going after Andrew Bolt and his infamous court case and condoning and encouraging (and worse, paying for) the defamation of Chris Kenny? My tax payer dollars are truly being wasted!

Long Xuyen :

17 Sep 2013 8:36:44am

Indeed, the comedy was a long way from meeting my standards of acceptability. But, while it was definitely sexual in nature and inappropriate, was it so far in principle from attacks made by Kenny and News? The style is absolutely appalling by my standards but so too was the other side which kept it up for 3 years.

Joseph :

17 Sep 2013 7:33:46am

Paul, Following the ABC no response to my complaints on ABC TV broadcasting, I gave up.For the last eighteen months I have been sending my complaints to Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and other coalition members.

Lee :

17 Sep 2013 2:02:24am

Is this another "race to the bottom?" (pun intended) Will Media Watch show a photo-shopped female posed similarly next week? I'm surprised there were no protests on the Hamster Decides gag, but don't think it's a reason for Paul Barry to join in in this way.Some Media Watch viewers are not amused.

ClarkeK :

16 Sep 2013 11:40:39pm

I have seen quite a few episodes of 'The Chaser' over the years and at their best, they can be brilliant: the Olympic Canadian sketch, some of Andrew Hanson's satiric songs, and the expose of Eric Abetz's chilling political style in the current series are examples.

At their worst, they display crude adolescent humour that is not witty and often disgusting. Charles Licciardello in particular introduces a style of gross physical humour that frequently lacks wit, finesse or class.

I found the Chris Kenny and dog episode distasteful and certainly unsubtle. I have the same reaction to Larry Pickering's cartoon depictions of Julia Gillard. I used to wince when Anita Keating was lampooned as Anita the Clog - most undeserved.

Interesting that Sarah Hansen-Young went the legal path. Someone like Amanda Vanstone - who has copped a bit over the years - collects the best of them and some people even like a bit of rough stuff: such as having your card stamped on by Alan Bond.

'The Australian' and 'The Daily Telegraph' know how to dish it out and one wonders whether, with a spectrum of our population, that kangaroo poo, pulling people's pants down, gross and even cruel depiction of asylum seekers, Nazi imagery etc are just the way some people like it. It can be a matter of taste, style and subjectivity. Some years ago now Abbott and Costello won damages from a writer associated with the Labor party in the way their wives were presented so there must be some legal thresholds.

Although I frequently find Chris Kenny's views objectionable I found this sketch about him quite repulsive but a solution would for the Chasers to voluntarily get rid of Chas and give someone like Katherine Mulvaney a permanent gig if she would take it.

John Thomas :

16 Sep 2013 11:26:15pm

I believe in freedom of speech/expression except where it can demonstrated to have negative consequences. I found the segment to be somewhat amusing, and do not see what real harm could eventuate from it. It may cause offense to some, but they are under no obligation to look at it; there is no implication that such an act as depicted ever occurred.

Andy :

17 Sep 2013 11:34:14am

so if someone dares to challenge the norm at the ABC, it'd be ok to show them in a photoshopped image molesting a child, then? no inference that the act happened, only defamation of character as a means of punishing those who dissent from the ABC groupthink.

Equally illegal and repulsive acts, and you're not under compulsion to look at them.